1. punish enemies for attacking his stuff. if they dont' attack his stuff his stuff lasts longer anyways.2. Do extra damage with his light attacks.3. Increase his creatures' or his own staying power with healing spells.

4. He wants to have a buddy as HA.

Whilst you are totally right that all ideas here are not tested, those proposed changes would keep your list the same.1. You actually write „attacked“ on your list. Right now the HA only gets furios if damage has been taken. 2. The additional Burn would be 1 mana cheaper. As priest I often felt mana starved so that extra burn is not working all times. Change would help.3. That's what holy school is good in 4. HA is pretty important for pressure. The idea to put him in play active is neat!

But yeah, it's all not tested. And nobody really knows why the priest is as he is.

@sharkbait: no mage is fully explored. I agree and that's why I love this game. But I really think that it is a waste of cards if some mages just feel like a bad choice to play with. I mean they are still fun to play, but always with that feeling of lower chances to win.My plan is (locally) to have all mages being played in fair matches. The premise is to add even more fun and variety to this game and to let our gaming group grow. I can't imagine you are against that.Official rules stay as AW tells us for those who are willing to play outside. (All under the purpose they agree to these changes)

All I'm saying is that i think you are wrong about two things. 1: i think there are tournament viable priest builds that exist. 2: i think he isn't a bad choice, nor is it a waste to try things with him until something works.

Side note for kelanen: i would take an AC warlock to a tournament over 3/4 of the existing mages. You guys put way too much of a match's result on the mage instead of on the player, in my opinion.

Not meaning to shoot anyone down here, but i don't think you guys are giving players enough credit

I do agree that the Priest, Johktari Beastmaster, and Bloodwave Warlord seem to be in a pretty bad place right now. I think some of the problems are fixable without direct erratas / houseruling, but most of them are not.

Priest:Yeah, he should definitely either have 10 channeling or not pay 1 mana to place burns (potentially even both). There's just no reason to pick him over the Priestess (for defensive play) or Paladin (for aggressive play) at the moment. Of all the mages, he is consistently the most mana-starved in my experience. If Arcane Wonders ever wants him to be competitive, I don't think there is any way to get around directly altering his abilities (even if only slightly).

Beastmasters:While your solution does work, I don't think it's actually necessary in the long run. The Straywood Beastmaster is fine as is, and introducing new cards could solve the awkwardness of the combined Sprint and Archery traits. Maybe a card which gives the skirmish trait while attacking with a ranged weapon, or perhaps an enchantment that grants +1 range to attacks. Another option is changing the Sprint ability to allow the Johktari Beastmaster to use a full-action ranged attack after moving twice by deducting 1 damage from the attack for each move action. I kind of feel like a more comprehensive action is needed though. Bows in general just seem really underpowered with every mage due to how restrictive they are. There is an abundance of people running positioning cards like Teleport and Force Push, which probably makes the extra range much less safe than the developers intended.

The other problem with the Johktari Beastmaster, which you didn't address, is her Wounded Prey ability. It sucks. In addition to the +1 damage the creature receives, I would also like it to apply the Lumbering trait, and halve all healing received by the creature (rounded down?). This would make the ability really useful (at least against living targets), let the Beastmaster more easily kite with ranged weapons, and turn her into a mage which specializes in focusing down one creature at a time.

Warlords:Lastly there are the Warlords. I agree with your suggestion that Battle Orders should be free to cast (once per round). I kind of wish the 2 Warlords' Battle Orders were more differentiated from each other (Bloodwave should be way more offensive than Anvil Throne), but that is hard to fix at this point without completely redoing them. Unfortunately, there is almost no way to make the Bloodwave Warlord equivalent to the Anvil Throne Warlord without some sort of errata or houseruling. The Runesmithing ability is just so good, while the Veterans ability is terrible. I suggest keeping the limitation that veteran tokens cannot stack (to dissuade the Warlord from buddy build strategies), but instead change the ability to read as thus: "Whenever an enemy creature is destroyed, you may choose up to 3 friendly soldier creatures within 1 zone of that creature and give them a Veteran token (maximum of one token per creature). Creatures with a Veteran token gain melee +1, ranged +1, and armor +1." This would make the Warlord's goblin and orc armies a lot more viable (arena-wide buffs to goblins would also help; Slaknir, Goblin Chieftain was a good start but more is needed. The change would also mean players are no longer punished for killing creatures with their mage or playing ranged units (who beforehand gained little benefit from becoming veterans).

Some of these changes might need a bit of tweaking, but I think they are a step in the right direction. In general: 1. the priest needs more mana efficiency (as well as access to more spells which the Paladin cannot as easily use)2. the Johktari Beastmaster needs better incentives to stay at range, needs to be able to kite creatures effectively, and needs to just generally be less awkward to play3. the Bloodwave Warlord needs a better primary ability

Side note for kelanen: i would take an AC warlock to a tournament over 3/4 of the existing mages. You guys put way too much of a match's result on the mage instead of on the player, in my opinion.

Not meaning to shoot anyone down here, but i don't think you guys are giving players enough credit

Not at all - I completely agree that a good player with a bad mage will beat a bad player with a good mage. But with two equal players the better mage will win - why handicap yourself? I go into a tournament taking the best I possibly can, so even the 2nd best is not good enough, let alone the 25th percentile, even if I agreed with that.

Side note for kelanen: i would take an AC warlock to a tournament over 3/4 of the existing mages. You guys put way too much of a match's result on the mage instead of on the player, in my opinion.

Not meaning to shoot anyone down here, but i don't think you guys are giving players enough credit

Not at all - I completely agree that a good player with a bad mage will beat a bad player with a good mage. But with two equal players the better mage will win - why handicap yourself? I go into a tournament taking the best I possibly can, so even the 2nd best is not good enough, let alone the 25th percentile, even if I agreed with that.

But there is no such thing as "equal" players, just as there is no such mage that is better than every other mage in each situation that can arise. Taking the best you can just means taking the mage that you personally play best with, not that it's better across the board. Inherently, that comes down to the player, not the mage.

Agreed with shark, and I actually think all mages are pretty close to each other. Even the bloodwave warlord is not that much worse than a necro or druid.

I really think some mages could really use an ability card upgrade, but I don't think it's problematic at this moment. An ability card is still only a little piece of the mage. Things like school training, cardpool, mage specific cards make up for a bigger portion.

Best example is the wizard, he was strong, but balanced when he came out of the core set, but due to the expansions of the minor schools and the addicition of the tower he became OP.

Logged

Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord

When in doubt kill it with fire? I never doubt and crush them right away.

Agreed with shark, and I actually think all mages are pretty close to each other. Even the bloodwave warlord is not that much worse than a necro or druid.

I really think some mages could really use an ability card upgrade, but I don't think it's problematic at this moment. An ability card is still only a little piece of the mage. Things like school training, cardpool, mage specific cards make up for a bigger portion.

Best example is the wizard, he was strong, but balanced when he came out of the core set, but due to the expansions of the minor schools and the addicition of the tower he became OP.

I think the main problem here isn't an inherent weakness in the priest, warlords and beastmasters. Even if they're not weak in theory, they're weak in practice because they're so hard to figure out how to play, even for highly skilled players. There are very very few beastmaster builds that take full advantage of their ability card. (The only ones I know of are falcon swarm and beastslinger.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Logged

Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

When you really get down to the heart of the problem, you notice that there are two types of mage Abilities.

1- Abilities that work independent of who the opponent is or what he does.Pet, Voltaric Shield, Force pull etc are examples of this. These are the abilities that are generally considered to be "good".

2- Abilities that work dependent of who the opponent is or what he does.This is where you find abilities like Holy Avenger, Wounded Prey, Veterans. All abilities which require your opponent to somehow play into your abilities before you can use them. These are the abilities that are generally considered "weak".

It should be quite obvious that whenever you have an ability where you need some "cooperation" from your opponent to actually make your ability work that you are at a disadvantage.

When you really get down to the heart of the problem, you notice that there are two types of mage Abilities.

1- Abilities that work independent of who the opponent is or what he does.Pet, Voltaric Shield, Force pull etc are examples of this. These are the abilities that are generally considered to be "good".

2- Abilities that work dependent of who the opponent is or what he does.This is where you find abilities like Holy Avenger, Wounded Prey, Veterans. All abilities which require your opponent to somehow play into your abilities before you can use them. These are the abilities that are generally considered "weak".

It should be quite obvious that whenever you have an ability where you need some "cooperation" from your opponent to actually make your ability work that you are at a disadvantage.

There is an alternative explanation that doesn't assume Arcane Wonders to have had a moment of uncharacteristic stupidity while designing multiple mages. If they had made this mistake only once or twice then that would be different. But this particular aspect of Mage abilities has happened enough times to make me think it's intentional. Aaron is not an idiot, and IMO the only design mistake he made which was blindingly obvious in retrospect was giving straywood quicksummoning and johktari fast. Therefore there is a reason for certain abilities to only work for certain matchups.

If wounded prey only works against living creatures and not nonliving creatures, then that probably means johktari bm is only supposed to need wounded prey against living creatures. Most zombies have lower life and and most skeletons have little to no armor. Nonliving creatures can't be healed. Only skeletons can be reconstructed to remove damage.

If veteran tokens only works when your opponent uses non-Mage creatures, that means you probably don't need vet tokens against solo mages. When your soldiers fight enemy nonmage creatures they are likely to take some damage. If they get +1 armor and +1 melee after destroying an enemy non-Mage creature they're more likely to survive long enough to attack the Mage too afterwards.

As for Holy Avenger, I'm not entirely certain how it's meant to be used, but it seems to me that as a holy Mage the priest would like it when his creatures and comjurations aren't attacked because then they last longer. Let's say priest attacks enemy knight of westlock with his staff for 5 dice and dazes it, and used Malakai's fire to burn it. Knight of westlock know has between 0 and 10 damage out of 10 life. If the knight survives and attacks the priest next, he only has a 50% chance of hitting. If the knight does hit, a guardian angel holy avenger can strike back at the knight for the same amount of dice. If the attack makes it through the defense that's another 0-6 damage. The knight is probably either dead or close to dead at this point. During final quickcast priest can cast another light attack on the knight, which will likely either daze/stun it or do enough damage for the burn to finish it off. Or if the knight is almost dead already he can cast a healing spell on himself, removing the damage that was just dealt to him. The problem if there is any with the priest isn't that his ability depends on opponent. More likely it's that he might be almost a one-trick pony, but I'm not entirely certain whether he is or not.

Logged

Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

I am Sailor Vulcan! Champion of justice and reason! And yes, I am already aware my uniform is considered flashy, unprofessional, and borderline sexually provocative for my species by most intelligent lifeforms. I did not choose this outfit. Shut up.

I haven't read all. I get good use out of either BM, I get also good use out of the Dwarf Warlord. orc is a bit tricky but dont think battleorders should be a free action. the dwarf doesnt need it.

Lastly to the Priest, for me he should have 10 channel if it anyway change, one could then change the ability to place a burn to 2 mana if it is felt too good, but thatway he isnt force to place those 1mana cheeper burns always . The Priestess or Paladin are just always the better choice. I know that one can build working priest books, even more good players. But honest question to Shark, Coshade, and whoever plays the priest. Why wouldn't be the Priestess the better choice? As i had feared on playtest Paladin is just better choice still. I am not breaking down the abilities now, but he doesnt do anything really better than the others, its not that bad anymore with bow and dazzle and blast but still rather play one of the others for better training or other ability and more channel

If the priest at least had battleskill with 9 channel that would also work.

Lot of wise people here stated something so i have Trump my way into this duscussion too

There are 12+2 Mages. There were not fully probed and they will not be as they card and play options change with each new expansion. But not all mages are equal. Good player will beat a bad player with any kind of mage but Best player with Priest will have disadvantage against Best player with Druid. Thats a Fact, that can only a luck during dice rolling can change.

Quote

2- Abilities that work dependent of who the opponent is or what he does.This is where you find abilities like Holy Avenger, Wounded Prey, Veterans. All abilities which require your opponent to somehow play into your abilities before you can use them. These are the abilities that are generally considered "weak".

- AGREED

I feel that Orc Warlord and Priest need a little help. Johktari need less help because one or two new spells could help her greatly.

I really think some mages could really use an ability card upgrade, but I don't think it's problematic at this moment. An ability card is still only a little piece of the mage. Things like school training, cardpool, mage specific cards make up for a bigger portion.

- AGREED

I arcanly wonder, how much possible is to find this Trio officialy Errated

I assume that for those abilities to be carefully *disabled* against some mages or creatures due to the balance reasons as you describe it would be way too much grandmasterish. Blizzard and his products have balance issues (even the small ones counts... i am looking at you Genji from OverWatch!) , NASA isnt 100% mistake proof either, even if they should be and the examples could go one and one.

If i play as warlord with goblin swarm, i would really welcome to have those other Battle Orders from Dwarf with a better way to distribute Vet tokens. Thats probably my selfish reasons not a need of balance

Logged

Favourite Mage: Bloodwave Warlord

I am one with the force, the force is with me! (Warlord is still my fav mage )

Lastly to the Priest, for me he should have 10 channel if it anyway change, one could then change the ability to place a burn to 2 mana if it is felt too good, but thatway he isnt force to place those 1mana cheeper burns always . The Priestess or Paladin are just always the better choice. I know that one can build working priest books, even more good players. But honest question to Shark, Coshade, and whoever plays the priest. Why wouldn't be the Priestess the better choice? As i had feared on playtest Paladin is just better choice still. I am not breaking down the abilities now, but he doesnt do anything really better than the others, its not that bad anymore with bow and dazzle and blast but still rather play one of the others for better training or other ability and more channel

If the priest at least had battleskill with 9 channel that would also work.

Of note: I've played using the priest significantly more than the paladin, and am nowhere close to the skill level with the priest as Coshade. That being said:

Everyone seems to be assuming that the HA is only affecting the game when the HA gains the Melee+2/Piercing+1. I find this premise to be false. The HA can be used to force your opponent into making bad decisions for which you can plan and counter. An example (and this is only one example, of which there are many that I've found) - You have a HA Crusader Griffin with White Cloak Knight and Knight of Westlock as buddies. Your opponent has to choose a threat to deal with. The threat of the Griffin rolling 7 dice + Piercing 1 is high enough to make one consider attacking the Griffin. However, the Griffin's both extra tough (life +5) and flying so it's really easy to be put in a bad position trying to kill it.

These are the choices that the opponent has to make, and good priest players punish based on what choice is made. I call the priest Aggressively reactive in my head.

The priestess is more defensive reactive, but I can expand on that in other places. I think they play differently enough that one doesn't overshadow the other in every situation and that it again comes back to player skill with the mage.

In regards to the paladin, I've been more often the opponent than the Pally driver. From my observations, th epaladin tends to be almost TOO flexible. The pally can do a lot of things decently, but doesn't focus well without giving up some of that flexibility (or things on their ability card). It's still a bit early to tell because there's a LOT of pally exploration left to do, but calling him strictly better than the priest is going against the data I'm seeing.

Quote

Good player will beat a bad player with any kind of mage but Best player with Priest will have disadvantage against Best player with Druid. Thats a Fact, that can only a luck during dice rolling can change.

Quote

It should be quite obvious that whenever you have an ability where you need some "cooperation" from your opponent to actually make your ability work that you are at a disadvantage.

I have a fundamental disagreement with these being facts due to a lot of what I've stated above. The starting conditions of "Best player with druid/priest" are unquantifiable, thus you can't test this thoery. However, it sounds like we're going to have to agree to disagree on these. . I do not mean to make anyone feel bad with the disagreements either. I do find civil discussions like this to be really entertaining because I have to really explore why I feel what I do. Carry on the good works, gents